For those who don't know this, after we get rid of roe v wade the United States will still be more liberal than Europe when it comes to abortion. Only the UK allows abortion out to 24 weeks. We have 32 states that allow 24 weeks or later.
Dear liberals, USA will still be number one in abortions after the conservatives win.
Wow, HUGE typo. I meant to type: "people always say 'so you are Against abortion even in cases of rape and incest?' "
All that is garbage and distraction. It boils down to control of another's body and their medical decisions. There is a reason white males fiercely support this.
Given your username, it's safe to assume you're trolling. Of course, its funny because many people who are not trolling say exactly this.
Just out of curiosity, why in the heck would some dude be so hell bent on saying women can't have abortions purely because they want to control them?? Like, if I'm a dude in Massachusetts, how in the world does is benefit me to say "eh, I think abortion is totally fine, but I want to make it so women can't have abortions just because it will make me feel good and powerful somehow". Seriously, that's just a freakin stupid assertion to have. It's the same as those moran republicans who said the liberal politicians were only enforcing Covid protocols to have power over people. Good golly you people are so cynical.. plus if all of our leaders- both republicans and democrats- only made laws for irrational reasons that make no sense other than wanting power- then were all screwed anyways... and no amount of arguing, LetsRun posts, or social media rants are going to changed these medieval politician's minds. But maybe, just maybe, that's not the case. Maybe for a given situation there is more than one logical perspective and that is why people disagree.
It would be at least ideologically consistent if all the anti-choice crowd said that a zygote is a fully formed person from the moment the gametes join and this it’s deserving of full rights from that moment without consideration to the circumstances of its conception. But most of them are okay with exceptions if the pregnancy didn’t occur consensually, which makes no sense if this is about defending a human life.
The only thing these azzhats value is a patriarchal system. It all boils down to their belief that in their zero sum world they stand to gain when the "others" suffer. These people elected TFG - they are morally bankrupt.
The reason why society holds child abuse in such contempt, is because of the vulnerability and dependence on adults that a child has. Yet this total dependence of the unborn baby on its mother for survival suddenly becomes the reason she should have the 'right' to kill it.
And whatever the rights and wrongs of abortion, it's chilling the way that feminists and millions of women see their 'rights' as having 100% primacy over any rights or thoughts for the unborn child.
It makes me think that our society's concern for children is largely fake. Really, we likely no more care for children than did the Romans or the Medieval societies. I mean, look at the way the same 'liberals' are happy to have 'trans' women share public toilets with children, or even have drag queens educate 6 year olds about 'non binary inclusivity'.
Probably most people's fury at things like paedophilia is largely projection.
The reason why society holds child abuse in such contempt, is because of the vulnerability and dependence on adults that a child has. Yet this total dependence of the unborn baby on its mother for survival suddenly becomes the reason she should have the 'right' to kill it.
And whatever the rights and wrongs of abortion, it's chilling the way that feminists and millions of women see their 'rights' as having 100% primacy over any rights or thoughts for the unborn child.
It makes me think that our society's concern for children is largely fake. Really, we likely no more care for children than did the Romans or the Medieval societies. I mean, look at the way the same 'liberals' are happy to have 'trans' women share public toilets with children, or even have drag queens educate 6 year olds about 'non binary inclusivity'.
Probably most people's fury at things like paedophilia is largely projection.
Most people don’t consider an embryo in the early stages of development to be a child. There’s a point at which you’re dealing with a person, and that’s typically been viewed at the point of independent viability. Most reasonable people are ok to limit abortion to 20 weeks or so because of this, with exceptions for extraordinary cases. Alito makes some awful arguments, but he’s not unintelligent here, knowing that he and his backers are ending abortion across half of the country, and setting it up for a roll back of other personal rights gained in the last fifty years.
Contrast this with Sandy Hook where 20 elementary school students were gunned down by 20 year old nutjob. There’s no disagreement that actual children were actually murdered and there’s been zero will at all for national legislation to limit the availability of the kind of weapons that were used to murder these kids.
Most of America supports common sense gun control, just like most of America supports abortion largely remaining a question between the woman and her doctor. But too many of them live in too few of the more populated states for their voices to count in our current government that gives outsized clout to less populated states.
Whether the woman views birthing a child as a "punishment" or not is up to them. If a woman consensually has sex, and a child being conceived is the result of that choice, the woman shouldn't just get to murder the child just because bringing that child to term is inconvenient to them. A mother shouldn't get to punish their child by death for her sh!tty choices just because that child's existence is an inconvenience to her. Either raise the child or give them up for adoption, but killing is not the answer. I don't share the same attitude for cases of rape and incest obviously, since that's not a woman's choice, but I still don't think abortion is the right move.
I know this sounds like "punishment" to you because you make your moral judgements based on what feels good or bad to you in the moment rather than logic and ethics, which would probably explain why liberals tend to be such miserable, angry people in general since that's such a horrible way to make decisions.
You’re implying that if the pregnancy didn’t occur by choice that it’s okay to kill the developing child.
You can’t have it both ways. We’re either talking about a fully fledged person from the moment of conception who needs to be protected by the state or we’re not and the pregnancy can be ended for whatever reason desired.
Maybe if you could actually read, you'd see that I explicitly said the opposite.
Whether the woman views birthing a child as a "punishment" or not is up to them. If a woman consensually has sex, and a child being conceived is the result of that choice, the woman shouldn't just get to murder the child just because bringing that child to term is inconvenient to them. A mother shouldn't get to punish their child by death for her sh!tty choices just because that child's existence is an inconvenience to her. Either raise the child or give them up for adoption, but killing is not the answer. I don't share the same attitude for cases of rape and incest obviously, since that's not a woman's choice, but I still don't think abortion is the right move.
I know this sounds like "punishment" to you because you make your moral judgements based on what feels good or bad to you in the moment rather than logic and ethics, which would probably explain why liberals tend to be such miserable, angry people in general since that's such a horrible way to make decisions.
Whether or not you view it as murder is up to you. I have a hard time seeing it that way. Tiny clumps of cells just can't get my sympathy I guess. The woman hating religious zealotry isn't helping.
Thanks for proving the point I made in my second paragraph. You are claiming that people are only deserving of life if elicit sympathy from you. Your morality judgements are based on your emotions at the time. Probably also tops the comment about there being too many people as the most psychopathic thing somebody has said on this tread.
You’re implying that if the pregnancy didn’t occur by choice that it’s okay to kill the developing child.
You can’t have it both ways. We’re either talking about a fully fledged person from the moment of conception who needs to be protected by the state or we’re not and the pregnancy can be ended for whatever reason desired.
Maybe if you could actually read, you'd see that I explicitly said the opposite.
You’re right, I missed the end of your first paragraph. You are consistent in believing that people aren’t ultimately in charge of their own bodies. I guess if you need my blood, you can throw me in jail to take it from me, whether or not I want to give it.
Whether or not you view it as murder is up to you. I have a hard time seeing it that way. Tiny clumps of cells just can't get my sympathy I guess. The woman hating religious zealotry isn't helping.
Thanks for proving the point I made in my second paragraph. You are claiming that people are only deserving of life if elicit sympathy from you. Your morality judgements are based on your emotions at the time. Probably also tops the comment about there being too many people as the most psychopathic thing somebody has said on this tread.
No, he or she isn’t saying that “only ‘people deserve life if they elicit sympathy.’”
You’re contending that the zygote, from the moment is formed, is a fully fledged and independent person and this person and myself and a majority of the United States are saying, “no it isn’t.”
If I assume your position, then yes, I think we’d need to state to somehow monitor every person capable of bearing children to regulate and prevent untimely deaths of these recently created people. About half of zygotes fail to implant. Assuming your view would posit that around of all people die before they reach an advanced stage of gestation.
And if you assume my position, that a developing human fetus because a fully fledged person somewhere later in the pregnancy, then these early stage abortions we’re discussing aren’t murder at all.
I’m not asking you to agree with my position on personhood in the stages of human gestation, but do you agree that if one holds my view that I’ve just described, then a first trimester abortion is not murdering anyone?
For those who don't know this, after we get rid of roe v wade the United States will still be more liberal than Europe when it comes to abortion. Only the UK allows abortion out to 24 weeks. We have 32 states that allow 24 weeks or later.
Dear liberals, USA will still be number one in abortions after the conservatives win.
Good point.
Europe was also ahead of the game when it came to ending slavery. The Democratic Party is why it took so long to end slavery in America. They just love enslaving and killing innocent people. It’s their parties platform.
Thanks for proving the point I made in my second paragraph. You are claiming that people are only deserving of life if elicit sympathy from you. Your morality judgements are based on your emotions at the time. Probably also tops the comment about there being too many people as the most psychopathic thing somebody has said on this tread.
No, he or she isn’t saying that “only ‘people deserve life if they elicit sympathy.’”
You’re contending that the zygote, from the moment is formed, is a fully fledged and independent person and this person and myself and a majority of the United States are saying, “no it isn’t.”
If I assume your position, then yes, I think we’d need to state to somehow monitor every person capable of bearing children to regulate and prevent untimely deaths of these recently created people. About half of zygotes fail to implant. Assuming your view would posit that around of all people die before they reach an advanced stage of gestation.
And if you assume my position, that a developing human fetus because a fully fledged person somewhere later in the pregnancy, then these early stage abortions we’re discussing aren’t murder at all.
I’m not asking you to agree with my position on personhood in the stages of human gestation, but do you agree that if one holds my view that I’ve just described, then a first trimester abortion is not murdering anyone?
"Everyone agrees" it's not a human life? This idea could only be brought to us by the same group of Einsteins telling us that biological males can be "women" (and vice versa). What a triumph for science!
If this "clump of cells" is not a human life, can you explain to everyone why there is a "medical imperative" to destroy these cells via abortion?
I think that everyone recognizes these cells and the potential they represent: human life. Pro-lifers acknowledge this directly, and Abortionists acknowledge it by demanding that they must be allowed abort this life form in order to prevent it from gaining consciousness.
Do whatever mental gymnastics you need to perform in order to justify actions which are convenient for you, but, make no mistake, this is a human life we are talking about.
It is interesting to see the way that right wing media and lawmakers are reacting in concert. Getting rid of Roe has been their biggest rallying cry for decades. The base loves it and gives money to do so. Instead of celebrating and congratulating one another, they are all saying the same thing word for word. Like it is written in a script. They are demanding an investigation into the diabolical Leak of it. Laura lost her bowels over it. Almost like they want to divert people's attention away from the actual ruling.
Any idea why they don't all have their press conferences and take ownership to pat one another on the back for what they accomplished?
Europe was also ahead of the game when it came to ending slavery. The Democratic Party is why it took so long to end slavery in America. They just love enslaving and killing innocent people. It’s their parties platform.
Your grasp of history is inadequate. The slave-owning Democrats became Republicans in the 1960's with a Democrat president ending segregation in the South. Under another label they have carried on their fine old tradition of contempt for freedom - especially other people's (read POC and women).
For years, people have been saying that pro-life people are attacking women's rights. I think this whole argument is unfair and essentially gaslighting. Pro-life people say "I believe life begins at conception. Since taking a life is murder, abortion is murder." This is what essentially they believe. Now, most of them ( in fact, literally all of the ones I know) believe abortion is okay and necessary when the mother's life is in danger or something went wrong and the baby isn't going to live, would be brain dead, die immediately after birth, etc.
It's a very simply position to understand given there's more or less a universal consensus that murder is wrong. BUT, there's no universal consensus on when life begins and there never will be. So we have to think about what's reasonable. I don't think its reasonable for one to say that birth control should be illegal because it's essentially killing life that may happen. Yes, if you didn't use birth control, then the sperm could have reached the egg, and life could have developed. But you're also admitting there's no creature that's been created with 46 chromosomes so it's not "murdering a human" to use birth control- it's "preventing a human".
But I think it's reasonable for someone to say that life begins at conception. I mean, its biologically a human. It has 46 chromosomes, DNA, everything. You can literally see the baby moving around in the ultrasound and hear the heartbeat. Of course, people may disagree, and that's fine. Personally, I can understand how someone could define life as "being viable" or even "exiting the womb".
But, pro-choice people tend to tell pro-life people "No! You don't believe the baby is a human life, you simply want to control women's bodies." Pro-choice people continue to repeatedly say that pro-life people don't actually believe the fetus is a human life, or that pro-life people only believe that because they've deluded themselves to fit their narrative and fulfill their core desire for power and controlling women. Pro-choice people essentially try to make pro-life people feel evil for their beliefs, and feel bad for fighting for the protection of life or that is their fault people have unwanted pregnancies because they didn't do enough to support sex education, pregnancy support programs, supporting poor, single mothers, supporting adoption clinics and foster-care systems, etc.. This is pretty much textbook gaslighting. In addition, most of the time, you don't even know that person so how the heck do you know what they support. And 2nd, even if all that's true, murder would still be wrong- so it wouldn't change their opinion. (Hopefully the person would care about all the other stuff, but it doesn't address where life begins).
This doesn't mean you have to agree with pro-life people. But stop with the gaslighting and actually argue their main concern. Prove to them that defining life is difficult and that since there's no consensus, you believe people should be able decide for themselves. If you acknowledge that you actually understand they are trying to protect life, you may actually get somewhere. (And with the same logic, pro-life people have to understand that pro-choice people don't view it as murder and are instead just making sure everyone has the ability to make the decisions they feel are best for them.. if the pro-life person feels inclined, they can try to persuade them why life actually begins at conception. Simply holding a sign calling someone a murderer outside an abortion clinic isn't going to do it and honestly just discredits pro-life people).
The reason why liberals never understand that it's about life and not control is because they're always projecting. They can't understand or comprehend a different perspective. If they could, they wouldn't be a liberal
But these are all things you do before you are pregnant. What if you actually are pregnant and don't want to be?
You should always control what happens in the space inside your body. There really is no such thing as privacy if the government can legislate for what happens there.
If there is a person living in the privacy of your own house, do you have the right to kill them because you no longer want them to live there? I don't know that the right to privacy extends to the right to take a human life. On the other hand, there are plenty of ways to prevent the creation of that life. I will reiterate the case in question was about a Mississippi law that dealt with abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy (when a child in the womb has a beating heart, moves freely and can respond to stimuli).
From a policy standpoint abortion has been extremely ineffective in preventing unwanted births. Out of wedlock births increased dramatically after abortion became legal (primarily because the perceived risk of out of wedlock sex was lower).
In many jurisdictions you do retain the right to remove people from your home if they do not have permission to be there.
The more pertinent analogy is if someone requires an organ transplant, you don't have to use your body to keep them alive. You can choose to donate, but you are not required to.
Even dead bodies are checked for donor registration to see if the recently deceased wanted their tissue to be used to keep another person alive.
But soon in half of states, the rights of a corpse to determine how their kidneys are used will be more respected than a living woman deciding how their womb is.